No, it’s worse. History is real and affects language.
Off topic: I always assumed you were a dude.
Even if that’s the case (and personally I agree that’s the case) if it shouldn’t be done across the board, there is no need to try to minimize or lessen the problem at hand to make you (or your side or compatriots or whatever word you want to use here) less culpable. If it shouldn’t be done, then say it shouldn’t be done. Full stop. Without qualifiers.
I am. But on the internet, no one knows if I’m wearing a cute dress or not.
Comparing a candidate’s children to monkeys is rude and invasive. Comparing a black candidate’s children to monkeys is rude and invasive and carries the baggage of centuries of hurtful racial stereotypes.
Neither one should be done, but one is a worse offense than the other.
Why is that such a baffling position?
why did you quote my post if you didn’t even read it?
I already said that, but that’s not the only thing. It’s reasonable to say “don’t do it at all – and it’s different for these folks because x, y, and z”. It doesn’t minimize it – it fully explains the issue. I want my future kids to know why they shouldn’t say certain things, and sometimes there is more than one reason – they should know all of them.
Sure totally agreed… but audience is important. This isn’t a group of kids (well at least chronologically) that need to be taught a history lesson. If you were teaching a civics class to seventh graders, I can see your point. Not in a conversation of …ahem… adults. In the context of this audience, it’s not important to make that distinction except to minimize culpability.
I disagree – I think it’s always appropriate to talk about all these sorts of aspects of an issue. “It’s wrong for all of these reasons, and these also for a different scenario” is reasonable and appropriate, in my view.
Fair enough. I respectfully disagree. This seems to be a problem in the larger world as well. X does Y and Y is a shitty thing. Z does Y and is a shitty thing. X is a monster and Z is misunderstood cuz I sympathize with Z and myriad unimportant reasons to the specific issue at hand. It’s a larger societal problem.
But that’s not what I said – it was more like “this is a really shitty terrible thing, and it’s even shittier and more terrible for these other people”.
ok fine… I still maintain that the minimizing of the culpability, the bolded part, is completely unnecessary and is self serving to your 'team" as it were (or whatever word you find appropriate here). Just say its shitty and terrible and move on. Any reasonable human being is gonna know that doing it to the President or Ben Carson puts a different spin. It’s completely OK to let it be shitty on it’s own terms without trying salve over the impact of the relative shittiness.
Racism is a Stupid liberal idea that exists just to make Right-thinking people angry, frustrated and befuddled. Right-thinking people simply cannot ever seem to understand how it works, it just looks like a bunch of multiculturalist pansies fucking with their heads.
It doesn’t minimize any culpability – it may increase it in some cases, but it certainly doesn’t minimize it at all. Very shitty thing to do no matter what, and even shittier in some cases. Lots of people don’t know or recognize this, and I think it’s reasonable to point it out to them.
It’s reasonable to do it your way, if you choose, and it’s reasonable to do it my way. The only unreasonable thing, in my view, is you saying that my way is not reasonable (or vice versa).
You are correct if I said that. Good thing I didn’t. What I said was that , as the receiver of your message, it appears you are trying to minimize the responsibility of the situation by introducing an element that is worse where it isn’t necessary.
“That Jeffrey Dahmer is a monster… but he’s no Ted Bundy.”
Agree to disagree. No harm, no foul. Just how it came off as a receiver of your message.
Jack Ohman in this morning’s Sacramento Bee:
Well, that is like the cartoon I saw the other day that went something like,
“ALL LIVES MATTER!!!1!11!”
“Then we should take in the Syrian refugees.”
“Whoa, hold on there, no way.”
DC bill would pay people stipends not to commit crimes
No way for that to be abused.
From the article:
If it works, I’m not sure it’s a stupid idea.
There was a This American Life story about it a while ago… definitely sounded weird and abusable on the surface, but there’s a lot more to it than just paying people money, and it does seem to be successful, so…